Opinions of the United 2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

2-26-2009

USA v. Brown Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 06-3227

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009

Recommended Citation "USA v. Brown" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1819. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1819

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2009 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 06-3227 ___________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

MICHAEL T. BROWN, also known as Mark Noble Brown, also known as Michael Ballard

Michael T. Brown, Appellant ___________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 03-cr-00288) District Judge: The Honorable Maurice B. Cohill, Jr. ___________

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) October 31, 2007

Before: RENDELL and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges, and McCLURE,* District Judge.

(Filed February 26, 2009) ___________

*Honorable James F. McClure, Jr., District Judge for the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. OPINION OF THE COURT ___________

NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.

Pursuant to L.A.R. 27.4, the Appellant’s sentence will be vacated and this

matter will be remanded to the District Court for re-sentencing in light of the United

States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Chambers v. United States, No. 06-11206,

(Jan. 13, 2009).

The Government, via letter brief filed January 26, 2009, agrees that the

Appellant’s sentence should be vacated and this matter remanded for re-sentencing

consistent with the Supreme Court’s Chambers decision, supra.

2